OMEGA Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Any similar review of Scott Moore? For what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 For what? He was cited three times in the match - you choose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMEGA Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 He was cited three times in the match - you choose No ban for running over and pushing Ah Van off a seriously injured team mate, no punches thrown by him in the incident so not guilty of any offence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 No ban for running over and pushing Ah Van off a seriously injured team mate, no punches thrown by him in the incident so not guilty of any offence! I see you've conveniently missed out the deliberate high shot on Ah Van and given his involvement in the previous incident this seems premeditated. Almost Thug like wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 No ban for running over and pushing Ah Van off a seriously injured team mate, no punches thrown by him in the incident so not guilty of any offence! Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Ah Van pleaded guilty to the charge. It was a terrible tackle, nothing good in it at all. He deserved the ban. Scott Moore also received a ban. He was cited under three separate charges. He also deserves the ban he received. But Scott Moore generally does. Invariably he gets banned at least once in a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelic Cynic Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 I know where the panel are coming from, because we certainly don't want another Alex McKinnon. But 5 matches is a lot for what was obviously a technique issue rather than anything intentional. Plus you see guys flipped upside down every week and it never gets 5 matches. It seems if a player sustains an injury then the offending/defending player is banned - This does not apply to any Salford player that is injured,but to any other Super League player. Bit of a lottery,as they say. No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomhauer65 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Should have got 6 or the full 8! It was a terrible tackle that could easily have been tragic had Gibson not broken his fall by getting his arm down ahead of his neck. Great initial contact by Ah Van but the lifting and driving downward were totally unnecessary & unacceptable! Aaron Heramia should also have been banned for a couple of matches, he's a lucky boy that he's escaped punishment. Betts needs to rethink his strategy next time he coaches and winds his team up to cross the line in terms of physicality. It didn't work, Wakefield stood up to them and won the game playing fast free flowing Rugby League. Widnes on the other hand lost the game, lost a couple of players to suspension, lost the respect of a lot of people and Betts list any last semblance of credibility. Additionally, Betts hypocricy in coming out slating the ref for penalising foul play after he'd sent his team out to play foul is laughable. The subsequent disgusting and disgraceful reaction of some Widnes fans, aimed at Ashley Gibson, has its catalyst in that Betts post match interview. Dennis Betts should be ashamed of himself! You would appear to be the light at the end of the colon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 I'm surprised he didn't get a longer ban, that was an awful tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super major Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Tackle seemed good until he had no control and ended up dangerous. Tackler has a duty of care but as many have said we see worse and a lecture is deemed enough, especially if you play in cherry and white Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Tackle seemed good until he had no control and ended up dangerous. Tackler has a duty of care but as many have said we see worse and a lecture is deemed enough, especially if you play in cherry and white There's always one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Unfortunately Gibson slows his momentum down, which allows Ah Van to get him in the air and backwards. I think it would have been ok but for him driving Gibson into the ground onto his shoulder and head. It has to be a ban, he's monoevred, however you look at it, onto his head. 5 is too much, for me. Bird, Gold Coast, has been hammered for these by the NRL judiciary in the past. Don't think Ah Van is that kind of player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Unfortunately Gibson slows his momentum down, which allows Ah Van to get him in the air and backwards. I think it would have been ok but for him driving Gibson into the ground onto his shoulder and head. You must have watched a different tackle to the one I watched which funnily enough also involved Gibson and Ah Van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMEGA Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 I see you've conveniently missed out the deliberate high shot on Ah Van and given his involvement in the previous incident this seems premeditated. Almost Thug like wouldn't you say? You asked me to choose, don't moan now because you don't like my choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.